Ex Parte Johnson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201512961066 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BRICE A. JOHNSON and DAVID J. CARBERY ____________ Appeal 2013-001015 Application 12/961,066 1 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, PETER F. KRATZ, and CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision 2 of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–3. Final Rej. 2–7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. OPINION Appellants’ invention relates to a “method of fabricating a composite item.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the appealed subject matter: 1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is The Boeing Company. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Office Action, mailed March 23, 2012 (“Final Rej.”). Appeal 2013-001015 Application 12/961,066 2 1. A method of fabricating a transition zone in a composite item, wherein the transition zone defines an area that begins at a first skin gauge and ends at a second skin gauge, the transition zone includes a first oblique ply boundary that is offset from a second oblique ply boundary, the method comprising: applying a first set of tapes of composite material across the first oblique ply boundary, each of the first set of tapes including a respective end that is butt cut and each of the first set of tapes including a respective centerline, wherein for each of the first set of tapes, the respective end and the respective centerline essentially converge upon the first oblique ply boundary; and applying a second set of tapes of composite material across the second oblique ply boundary, each of the second set of tapes including a respective end that is butt cut and each of the second set of tapes including a respective centerline, wherein for each of the second set of tapes, the respective end and the respective centerline essentially converge upon the second oblique ply boundary, wherein the respective ends of the second set of tapes are offset from the respective ends of the first set of tapes to generate a crenulated pattern. Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner rejected claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Nelson 3 and Oldani. 4 Appellants argue the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 14. We select claim 1 as representative of all the claims on appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Oldani, relied on by the Examiner to teach the claimed “crenulated pattern,” does not teach or suggest the pattern recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–10. We find this argument persuasive. 3 Nelson, US 2004/0098852 A1, published May 27, 2004. 4 Oldani et al., US 2005/0240291 A1, published Oct. 27, 2005. Appeal 2013-001015 Application 12/961,066 3 Oldani teaches a composite structure, depicted in Figure 3, reproduced below. Figure 3 depicts one layer of material making up a square boss 114, made of strips of material 116, which are cut and placed so as to form “a crenulated edge.” Oldani ¶¶ 24–25. Accordingly, the Examiner found that Oldani teaches or suggests laying composite material tapes such that “the respective ends of the second set of tapes of composite material across the second imaginary oblique ply boundary are offset from the respective ends of the first set of tapes to generate a crenulated pattern.” Final Rej. 4–5. Appellants argue that claim 1 requires not just a “crenulated pattern,” but also that the crenulated pattern be formed by interaction between the offset edges and ends of separate layers of tapes. Appeal Br. 10. We agree with Appellants that claim 1 requires that “the respective ends of the second set of tapes [be] offset from the respective ends of the first set of tapes to Appeal 2013-001015 Application 12/961,066 4 generate a crenulated pattern.” Appeal Br. 16. Oldani teaches a structure with what Oldani refers to as a “crenulated edge,” but this edge is created by the ends and edges of the individual tapes making up a single layer, not by the interaction between the offset ends of the tapes that make up multiple layers. Oldani ¶¶ 24–25, Fig. 3. Accordingly, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Oldani teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 that requires that “the respective ends of the second set of tapes [be] offset from the respective ends of the first set of tapes to generate a crenulated pattern.” Second, although Oldani teaches a structure with an edge that Oldani describes as “crenulated,” Appellants’ Specification implicitly but clearly defines “crenulated” in a way that is inconsistent with the structure taught by Oldani. A patent applicant may act as his own lexicographer, providing a definition of a claim term in the specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, Appellants’ Specification provides such a definition of “crenulated.” Figure 5 of the Specification depicts separate layers being “staggered . . . such that the leading and trailing edges [of the tapes that make up the layers] and/or the interfaces [between adjacent tapes] do not coincide.” Spec. ¶ 29. The Specification refers to the structure depicted in Figure 5 as constituting “crenulation,” equating “crenulation” with the depicted “spacing and staggering.” Id. Thus, “crenulation” is defined by Appellants as a structure made up of multiple layers that are staggered and spaced so that the ends and edges of the tapes in the separate layers do not coincide. Given that Oldani teaches, as discussed above, only a “crenulated” edge that is created by a single layer, we do not agree with the Examiner’s Appeal 2013-001015 Application 12/961,066 5 finding that Oldani teaches or suggests the claimed “crenulated pattern,” as that term is defined by Appellants. Because Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Oldani teaches or suggests the claimed “crenulated pattern,” as formed by the claimed offset between the ends of tapes that form separate layers, we reverse the decision of the Examiner. ORDER We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Nelson and Oldani. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation